lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <pbkiwezwlf6dmogx7exur6tjrtcfzxyn7eqlehqxivqifbkojv@xlziiuzekon4> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:11:19 +0100 From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> Cc: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...utedevices.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...rdevices.ru, oxffffaa@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/3] virtio/vsock: send credit update during setting SO_RCVLOWAT On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:43:34PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >> >> >> On 30.11.2023 16:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:08:39PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >> >> Send credit update message when SO_RCVLOWAT is updated and it is bigger >> >> than number of bytes in rx queue. It is needed, because 'poll()' will >> >> wait until number of bytes in rx queue will be not smaller than >> >> SO_RCVLOWAT, so kick sender to send more data. Otherwise mutual hungup >> >> for tx/rx is possible: sender waits for free space and receiver is >> >> waiting data in 'poll()'. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...utedevices.com> >> >> --- >> >> Changelog: >> >> v1 -> v2: >> >> * Update commit message by removing 'This patch adds XXX' manner. >> >> * Do not initialize 'send_update' variable - set it directly during >> >> first usage. >> >> v3 -> v4: >> >> * Fit comment in 'virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat()' to 80 chars. >> >> v4 -> v5: >> >> * Do not change callbacks order in transport structures. >> >> >> >> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 1 + >> >> include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 + >> >> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 1 + >> >> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c | 1 + >> >> 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c >> >> index f75731396b7e..4146f80db8ac 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c >> >> @@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = { >> >> .notify_buffer_size = virtio_transport_notify_buffer_size, >> >> >> >> .read_skb = virtio_transport_read_skb, >> >> + .notify_set_rcvlowat = virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat >> >> }, >> >> >> >> .send_pkt = vhost_transport_send_pkt, >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h >> >> index ebb3ce63d64d..c82089dee0c8 100644 >> >> --- a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h >> >> +++ b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h >> >> @@ -256,4 +256,5 @@ void virtio_transport_put_credit(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, u32 credit); >> >> void virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(struct sk_buff *skb); >> >> int virtio_transport_purge_skbs(void *vsk, struct sk_buff_head *list); >> >> int virtio_transport_read_skb(struct vsock_sock *vsk, skb_read_actor_t read_actor); >> >> +int virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat(struct vsock_sock *vsk, int val); >> >> #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_VSOCK_H */ >> >> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c >> >> index af5bab1acee1..8007593a3a93 100644 >> >> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c >> >> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c >> >> @@ -539,6 +539,7 @@ static struct virtio_transport virtio_transport = { >> >> .notify_buffer_size = virtio_transport_notify_buffer_size, >> >> >> >> .read_skb = virtio_transport_read_skb, >> >> + .notify_set_rcvlowat = virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat >> >> }, >> >> >> >> .send_pkt = virtio_transport_send_pkt, >> >> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c >> >> index f6dc896bf44c..1cb556ad4597 100644 >> >> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c >> >> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c >> >> @@ -1684,6 +1684,33 @@ int virtio_transport_read_skb(struct vsock_sock *vsk, skb_read_actor_t recv_acto >> >> } >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_transport_read_skb); >> >> >> >> +int virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat(struct vsock_sock *vsk, >> >> int val) >> >> +{ >> >> + struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs = vsk->trans; >> >> + bool send_update; >> >> + >> >> + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); >> >> + >> >> + /* If number of available bytes is less than new SO_RCVLOWAT value, >> >> + * kick sender to send more data, because sender may sleep in >> >> its >> >> + * 'send()' syscall waiting for enough space at our side. >> >> + */ >> >> + send_update = vvs->rx_bytes < val; >> >> + >> >> + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); >> >> + >> >> + if (send_update) { >> >> + int err; >> >> + >> >> + err = virtio_transport_send_credit_update(vsk); >> >> + if (err < 0) >> >> + return err; >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> + return 0; >> >> +} >> > >> > >> > I find it strange that this will send a credit update >> > even if nothing changed since this was called previously. >> > I'm not sure whether this is a problem protocol-wise, >> > but it certainly was not envisioned when the protocol was >> > built. WDYT? >> >> >From virtio spec I found: >> >> It is also valid to send a VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE packet without previously receiving a >> VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_REQUEST packet. This allows communicating updates any time a change >> in buffer space occurs. >> So I guess there is no limitations to send such type of packet, e.g. it is not >> required to be a reply for some another packet. Please, correct me if im wrong. >> >> Thanks, Arseniy > > >Absolutely. My point was different - with this patch it is possible >that you are not adding any credits at all since the previous >VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE. I think the problem we're solving here is that since as an optimization we avoid sending the update for every byte we consume, but we put a threshold, then we make sure we update the peer. A credit update contains a snapshot and sending it the same as the previous one should not create any problem. My doubt now is that we only do this when we set RCVLOWAT , should we also do something when we consume bytes to avoid the optimization we have? Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists